Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV09780, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09780    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff David Argueta’s motion to quash and/or limit Defendant The AMAAD Institute’s deposition subpoenas for production of business records served on third-party Cyti Psychological Services is denied.  

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant The AMAAD Institute and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, is denied.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff David Argueta (“Argueta”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to quash and/or limit Defendant The AMAAD Institute’s (“AMAAD”) (“Defendant”) Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”) served on third-party Cyti Psychological Services (“Cyti”).  (Notice Motion, pg. 2.)  Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,500.00.  (Notice Motion, pg. 2.)

Background

On November 8, 2023, Defendant served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records on Cyti for a deposition noticed for December 11, 2023.  (Decl. of Benyamin ¶3, Exh. 1.)[1]

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 6, 2023.  Defendant filed its opposition on March 12, 2024.  Plaintiff filed his reply on March 18, 2024.

           Meet and Confer

A motion to quash shall be accompanied by a declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute” between the party requesting the records and the “consumer” or “employee” whose records are involved or counsel for such person.  (C.C.P. §§1985.3(g), 1985.6(f)(4).)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he called Defendant’s counsel on December 1, 2023, to discuss the instant subpoena, and that parties’ counsel spoke again on December 5, 2023, wherein no agreement with reached regarding the instant motion.  (See Decl. of Benyamin ¶¶6-7.)  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration motion complies with C.C.P. §1985.3(g) or §1985.6(f)(4). Therefore, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion.

Motion to Quash

C.C.P. §1987.1 provides, in part:

If a subpoena requires . . . the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, . . . the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party], or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.

(C.C.P. §1987.1.)

A party may only discover matters, not privileged, that are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and that are either admissible evidence or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Broad discovery requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224-225.)

Defendant’s Subpoena requests the following:

1.    Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS in [Cyti’s] possession, custody and/or control RELATING TO application for employment, employment records, personnel files, work eligibility records, disciplinary records, workers' compensation files, pay stubs, performance reviews, time sheets (including clock-in and clock-out records and weekly schedules), doctor's notes, work restrictions, medical/administration leave and payroll RELATED TO Plaintiff David J. Argueta (“EMPLOYEE”), who was born on [redacted], and whose Social Security No. is [redacted].

2.    This request includes, but¿ is not limited to, any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO threatened or actual workers’ compensation claims; threatened or actual claims of discrimination, harassment or retaliation; threatened or actual lawsuits; employee evaluations; threatened or actual discipline or reprimand; and DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify EMPLOYEE’s supervisors during EMPLOYEE’s period(s) of employment.

3.    This request also includes any and all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO any disability and/or work restrictions that EMPLOYEE communicated to [Cyti] during his period(s) of employment, including, without limitation, any doctor's note; any DOCUMENT indicating any restriction EMPLOYEE had on his ability to work; any request for accommodation of any kind; any COMMUNICATIONS with EMPLOYEE regarding any disability, work restriction or accommodation; or any accommodation of any kind that was provided to EMPLOYEE.

4.    This request also includes any and all DOCUMENTS given to [Cyti] by, or received from, EMPLOYEE or any attorney, agent or representative of EMPLOYEE.

(Decl. of Benyamin ¶2, Exh. 1.)

Defendant’s Subpoena seeks documents that are relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The Subpoena seeks records from June 1, 2022, to present, which covers Plaintiff’s period of employment with Cyti through the date of the request, as indicated in Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories- Employment (Set One) (“FROG”).  (Decl. of Benyamin ¶2, Exh. 1; Decl. of Kashefipour ¶¶5-6, Exh. 1 at FROG No. 210.6.)  Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that Plaintiff seeks lost income in the form of damage to his career trajectory.  (Complaint ¶17.)  Therefore, Plaintiff’s employment file is relevant to chart that progress.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s employment actions are relevant to determine if Plaintiff has ever informed his employers of his disability or his alleged need for accommodations, as well as to determine the precise date Plaintiff was hired at his current position, which goes to issues of credibility and whether this information contradicts Plaintiff’s position in this case.  Further, Plaintiff’s employment file with his current employer is relevant to determine the extent to which his career trajectory was damaged by his allegedly discriminatory termination from Defendant, and whether he is entitled to lost earnings as a result of that decline.

Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory responses indicate that he mitigated his lost earnings damages as of approximately June 2022. However, Plaintiff’s responses also seek lost earnings damages long after his June 2022 start date with Cyti Psychological Services. To the extent Plaintiff seeks lost earnings, including for payment beyond June of 2022, his employment records, including his performance reviews, payroll records, and benefit records, are all relevant to Defendant’s defenses. Thus, the information sought is relevant, and the language of the subpoena itself is reasonably narrowly tailored for this case and the claims at issue.

Similarly, Plaintiff is seeking emotional distress damages that include physical, emotional, and diminished quality of life.  Defendant seeks information relevant to injuries and subsequent injuries that may impact the scope and cause of such future damages, including intervening or superseding events like performance reviews, workers compensation claims, subsequent disability claims, and the like, which would be contained in the personnel and payroll records of his current and future employers.

With regard to Plaintiff’s privacy rights, the language in the Subpoena seeking Plaintiff’s employment file, which is limited in time to the period following the date of employment identified in Defendant’s discovery responses, is reasonable and narrowly tailored for this case and the claims at issue. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff has any right to privacy in his current employer’s personnel file, that right is not absolute.  (See Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1853 [“It is also well established that this zone of privacy is not absolute.”], citations omitted; Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 [stating a plaintiff’s “privacy interests may have to give way to [plaintiff’s] opponent's right to a fair trial”].)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Cyti is denied.

Sanctions

In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  March _____, 2024